Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.20 seconds)
Mst. Saraswatibai And Ors. vs Govindrao Keshavrao Mahajan And Ors. on 7 December, 1960 cites

Gopal Parsharam Namjoshi vs Damodar Janardan Bhagwat on 6 October, 1942

4. The question for consideration here is whether an otherwise good application for execution can be regarded, for the purposes of Section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to be one made in accordance with law even if the only mode in which the assistance of the Court stated to be required is rateable distribution of the assets to be received in another execution case pending in the same Court. As indicated earlier, 25 Nag LR 94: (AIR 1929 Nag 148) (cit. sup.) is a direct authority for the contrary view, though the decision of that case is supportable on the ground that there was, unlike the case be-fore us, no execution application and only an application for rateable distribution of assets had been filed. Some support for that view was sought to be derived from Gopal Parshuram v. Damodar Janardan, AIR 1943 Bom 353.
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Jugalkishore Saraf vs Raw Cotton Co. Ltd on 7 March, 1955

6. There is another aspect of this case which perhaps escaped the notice of the lower Court. Since, as contended for, the only defect in these three applications was in the specification of the mode in which the assistance of the Court was required, that defect was not such as could preclude the decree-holders from obtaining relief: Jugalkishore Saraf v. Raw Cotton Co. Ltd., 1955-1 SCR 1369: ((S) AIR 1955 SC 376). When the three applications for execution were made, the Court had to scrutinize the applications as required by Order 21, Rule 17 of the Code and, if they were found to be defective, the Court should have either rejected the application or allowed the defect to be removed there and then or within a time to be fixed by the Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 135 - Full Document
1